Anyone with an internet connection will now be able to take a new look into the Biblical past through an online archive of high-resolution images of the 2,000-year-old Dead Sea Scrolls completed by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) and Google.

The scrolls, most of them on parchment, are the oldest copies of the Hebrew Bible and include secular text dating from the third century BC to the first century AD.

IAA, the custodian of the scrolls that shed light on the life of Jews and early Christians at the time of Jesus, said it has collaborated with Google's research and development centre in Israel for the past two and a half years to upload digitised images of thousands of fragments from the collection.

Yossi Matias, the head of Google-Israel R&D centre, described the project launch as "exciting"....

John UK wrote:Frank, as we progress with this, I can assure that eventually you will HAVE to say some negative things about the KJV. But fear not, chief of sinners (although I am actually), for our unity is in Christ Jesus, and we are brothers together in HIM, and I want to give you the assurance that our friendship will not be harmed by having head-to-head on this issue.What issue? The issue that doctrine is affected by which Bible you read. Did you look up Matthew 19:9 and find the verse shorter than in the KJV? Okay, so do you accept that if you read one Bible you arrive at a doctrinal conclusion, but if you read the other, you arrive at a completely diferent doctrinal conclusion?That is the important starting point. If you are worried about KJV-Onlys, let me use the Geneva Bible or the Tyndale Bible.p.s. I wish you would post scripture using the version you are currently happy with. Then, when you see that the KJV is far better, you can use that one. You realise it is 12.30am here?

No problem brother, your 19:9 will be there when you wake up. Lastly, I have never said, nor do I even ponder whether the KJ has errors or not, but, my guess is it is like the NASB it has some. But, all doctines are preserved.

Frank wrote:The above never dawned on me; even for an instant. In fact, if you look through all my posts, I did not say anything negative against the KJ...

Frank, as we progress with this, I can assure that eventually you will HAVE to say some negative things about the KJV. But fear not, chief of sinners (although I am actually), for our unity is in Christ Jesus, and we are brothers together in HIM, and I want to give you the assurance that our friendship will not be harmed by having head-to-head on this issue.

What issue? The issue that doctrine is affected by which Bible you read. Did you look up Matthew 19:9 and find the verse shorter than in the KJV? Okay, so do you accept that if you read one Bible you arrive at a doctrinal conclusion, but if you read the other, you arrive at a completely diferent doctrinal conclusion?

That is the important starting point. If you are worried about KJV-Onlys, let me use the Geneva Bible or the Tyndale Bible.

p.s. I wish you would post scripture using the version you are currently happy with. Then, when you see that the KJV is far better, you can use that one.

Frank wrote:The above never dawned on me; even for an instant. In fact, if you look through all my posts, I did not say anything negative against the KJ; only against those who somehow believe the translation was god-breathed to the exclusion of anything else. (A KJO fellow) My dear brother, you are clearly missing my point. When did I say the NASB was superior to the KJ? All I said was all doctrines are protected in the NASB. Like I said before, since you can't see my argument and somehow think it is hollow, or that I desire to gain a victory or the issue will make me feel secure; you are protesting too much. None of those things ever dawned on me. Why would I post using the KJ if I felt it was not the word of God? I do it for those who have formed a litmus test, so they aren't needlessly offended, but I wouldn't do it if I thought the post was harmful. Now, if you seriously want me to look at the marrying issue, I will.

The above never dawned on me; even for an instant. In fact, if you look through all my posts, I did not say anything negative against the KJ; only against those who somehow believe the translation was god-breathed to the exclusion of anything else. (A KJO fellow) My dear brother, you are clearly missing my point. When did I say the NASB was superior to the KJ? All I said was all doctrines are protected in the NASB. Like I said before, since you can't see my argument and somehow think it is hollow, or that I desire to gain a victory or the issue will make me feel secure; you are protesting too much. None of those things ever dawned on me. Why would I post using the KJ if I felt it was not the word of God? I do it for those who have formed a litmus test, so they aren't needlessly offended, but I wouldn't do it if I thought the post was harmful. Now, if you seriously want me to look at the marrying issue, I will.

Contextisitcorrect wrote:[..The TBS also have a consultant who is just as well instructed in the original languages as brother James White who is in the process of writing a book dealing with some of Dr White's writings on the KJV. Watch this space

Lets hope that he has the integrity and clarity of thought possessed by James White, then it should make an interesting read. Who is this consultant, or are you not at liberty to say?

Luke 3:14‚Ä¶ ‚ÄúAnd the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, ***neither accuse any falsely***; and be content with your wages‚ÄĚ

Source Info..

I am all for accurate writings on the errors of W&H, but not any misrepresentations. Hence I refer you to the TBS who seek to defend the KJV without the need for any character assassinations and are the best source for information.

Question? 'I would recommend 2 books that clearly expose the foolishness of the KJO position. One is by James White..'

The TBS also have a consultant who is just as well instructed in the original languages as brother James White who is in the process of writing a book dealing with some of Dr White's writings on the KJV. Watch this space

6. the idea that all translators and readers of new versions have ulterior motives

No, I don't even claim that one, Frank. Sincerity can be devil-led. Ask the pope. We are sincere, but he calls us the devil's cowboys.

I am trying to answer your sincere question, but I am beginning to doubt whether or not you really want to come to terms with the doctrinal differences.

I tell you what. Let us accept the NASB as the correct Bible doctrinally, and the KJV as the incorrect one. That way, you may feel more secure. Remember the important thing is DIFFERENCES in doctrine.

Now a man is a young Christian and single and he is thinking of marrying a divorced woman, so he asks his Christian friends where he should turn in the Bible for instruction. One says Matthew 19:9.

Matthew 19:9 KJV9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

He only reads the NASB which he loves, and he reads the text, but it has "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" missing. And so he marries the woman and goes on his way rejoicing.

Frank wrote:If someone could present me with a doctrine from the KJ that is not present in the NASB, then I will quit using it. I would say that was a quest for truth.

Why does the NASB make Jesus lie?

KJV-John 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up YET unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. 9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. 10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

NASB- John 7:8 "Go up to the feast yourselves; I DO NOT GO UP to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.'' 9 Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee. 10 But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself ALSO WENT UP, not publicly, but as if, in secret.

"some" characteristics of a KJO. Those are the ones I was addressing. Nr 6 seems to be referring to the subterfuge you were referring to?

1.the idea that there are no errors or problems of translation in the KJV.2. the idea that there are no internal errors or problems in the text of the KJV.3. the idea that any changes of words of the KJV constitutes changing God's word (and thus no other English translations are "the word of God") 4. God promised to preserve the Scriptures word for word throughout the centuries.5. the idea that the KJV translators were divinely guided, and thus the words they used were given to them by the Holy Spirit to be implemented without any alternates. - the idea that all other translations are inspired by Satan.6. the idea that all translators and readers of new versions have ulterior motives7. the idea that Christians who use other versions are spiritual cripples at best, and destined for Hell at worst.8. the idea that the KJV translators were "super-human" (i.e. much more qualified than any translators before or after them).9. the idea that someone who doesn't agree with them about the status of the KJV is automatically a "heretic" or an "apostate", and is certainly "unteachable".

Well did you look at the links and the full quotes and their context? Your quotes are not accurate my friend and you haven't responded to that. Note this does the defence of the KJV no good at all. In this internet age one can view the writings of W&H online and check.

From a pro-W&H site...

'It is worth noting here that people like Charles Spurgeon and Dean Burgon, who were comtemporaries with Westcott and Hort and knew them personally, never made such claims against their character and beliefs, even when vocally disagreeing with some of their approaches to textual criticism. Burgon and Spurgeon never called them heretics, never questioned or challenged their Christian faith, never challenged or questioned their doctrinal statements, never accused them of involvement or of condoning of occultic or New Age practices or beliefs, etc.)'

Frank wrote:I would say the doctrine of repentance is pretty safe, wouldn't you say?

My dear bro, you had no need to do all that work. I knew that anyway.

Let us imagine we are at the devil's HQ, listening to the plans. One says, "I think we ought to remove all reference to repentance from the new Bible."

The devil looks up. "No, no, no! That will not do. We must use subterfuge. Subtlety is our middle name. Little by little, bit by bit. Then those foolish Christians will not notice, especially when they are made to look foolish by our "modern" scholars, who are in the palm of our hand."

"What we do is this: we remove "to repentance" from Matthew 9:13 and Mark 2:17, but leave it in Luke 5:32. That way, if anyone grumbles, they can be told, 'Look, we have it in Luke 5:32!!' But after so many years, we shall be able to remove it completely, even from Luke. Oh I have this thing all worked out. I will fool so many of those wretched Christ people."

Now Frank, what you have to tell me is this: Why is "to repentance" missing from the first two gospels in your Bible?

Just in case you did not know (and others will back me up on this), I have said all along, for many years, that the longterm effect of the versions is what we must consider.

Contextisitcorrect wrote:It is better to give the full quote and page reference

There are many sites which use many quotes of W & H for example the Dean Burgon Society and D.A.Waite. But the fact of the W & H Greek Text (Alexandrian/Vaticanus et al) and the many details available about these to Anglican Liberals show them to be heretics. Obviously heretics too have there supporters, the Nestle-Aland enterprise for example which led to the modern versions counterfeit bible text conglomerate today being a case in point. I have read enough and know enough to reject W & H and what has followed their textual criticism path to modern versions. If you are a W & H/mod version fan then please beware of the subtle nature of this battle.

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, ‚ÄúRepent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 3:19‚ÄúTherefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; Acts 8:22‚ÄúTherefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you. Revelation 3:19 ‚ÄėThose whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.Mark 1:15and saying, ‚ÄúThe time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.‚ÄĚLuke 24:47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Acts 20:21solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I would say the doctrine of repentance is pretty safe, wouldn't you say? Now in MT 9:13, I have always assumed that if I thought I was righteous, then I wouldn't repent, so the difference never bothered me. But, as to distinction, I never admitted that I was a textual critic. I simply use the entire bible.

Christopher000 wrote:My understanding is limited to these types of comparisons for now because I'm lost with the rest of the manuscript types of evidences.

Comparison charts are most helpful, Christopher, even those published by old time pentecostals. The reason is because these charts are black and white; the Bibles are freely available today, and comparisons can be made. There are plenty on the net, and can help with coming to certain conclusions.